If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Barry

Then the flip side to this is ... others can only speak for themselves and not project on everyone else that the sky is falling down due to neonics. Thus, it is not fair to constantly tell people their bees are sick.

Well, I keep this discussion for the sake of discussion, not arguments (I had enough). Basically, I agree that, for instance, people with 3rd-degree lung cancer from smoking should speak out about their health issue. But, as I was trying to show in my previous message, quite often, people sent wrong messages stating that they are (or bees) perfectly OK ... meantime having 3rd degree undiagnosed cancer - they believed that they are healthy! In case of Michael Palmer - his statement was counterproductive in exact way as many other statements from pro-against neonics people. The statement that HIS bees are doing great in the presence of neonics is just misleading statement from 0.006%

Now, if he wanted to do something useful to the community - the great way to do so is to share his valuable expertise with concerned public. Write a book, create video about his super healthy bees... instead asking somebody why his bees are doing great. There is a great book by Michael Bush for small scale beekeepers. It would be beneficial to everyone to have the book from another Michael how to keep bees healthy at larger scale in our challenging time when averages loses are 30%...

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Barry

it is not fair to constantly tell people their bees are sick.

It is unfair to the bees to assume that if they are consistently ingesting >~ 1ppb imidacloprid or similar concentrations of other neonics, that they are well. They may be surviving, however. It comes down to exposure levels, time of exposure, and secondary factors like pathogens. Probably safe exposure levels are less than what the chemical companies are telling us. Probably most of the time, our bees find forage that is not too contaminated.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by cerezha

But, as I was trying to show in my previous message, quite often, people sent wrong messages stating that they are (or bees) perfectly OK ... meantime having 3rd degree undiagnosed cancer - they believed that they are healthy! In case of Michael Palmer - his statement was counterproductive in exact way as many other statements from pro-against neonics people. The statement that HIS bees are doing great in the presence of neonics is just misleading statement from 0.006%

Umm, I am inclined to believe Mr. Palmer if he states his bees are healthy. In the scientific method it only takes one contrary finding to negate the hypothesis.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by cerezha

Well, In case of Michael Palmer - his statement was counterproductive in exact way as many other statements from pro-against neonics people. The statement that HIS bees are doing great in the presence of neonics is just misleading statement from 0.006%

Now, if he wanted to do something useful to the community - the great way to do so is to share his valuable expertise with concerned public. Write a book, create video about his super healthy bees......

Something useful to the beekeeping community??? Create a video?? Teach a class?? Write a book??

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by cerezha

quite often, people sent wrong messages stating that they are (or bees) perfectly OK ...

I don't see anyone saying this. There most likely are no "perfectly ok" bees. But there are commercial beekeepers with many hives next to neonic crops where their bees are OK, maybe not perfect, but nothing noticeably wrong. This is a far cry from some who are saying they lost all their bees due to neonic crops. A rather large gap here, and it should be cause for a little more reserve in how grand our statements are.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Barry

... it should be cause for a little more reserve in how grand our statements are.

Exactly - if Mr. Palmer's bees are doing OK in neonic crops, it does not mean that the rest of 15 million beehives/colonies are doing equally well! Yes, it was my entire point that such "grande" arguments (all Australia is covered with neonics and bees are OK) are not right and misleading!

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by cerezha

Yes, it was my entire point that such "grande" arguments (all Australia is covered with neonics and bees are OK) are not right and misleading!

But where's the evidence that bees in Australia are not okay? I've heard nothing to indicate otherwise. I could make all types of claims of Australian bees but if there's no evidence they are merely unfounded claims.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Yes, it is the unfounded claims that are hurting the discussions of neonics. Making big but unsupported claims obfuscates the issues, and makes it much harder to figure out what is really happening to bees. Which, could possibly be the whole point of such posts, I guess.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by D Coates

But where's the evidence that bees in Australia are not okay? I've heard nothing to indicate otherwise. I could make all types of claims of Australian bees but if there's no evidence they are merely unfounded claims.

Look
If you want peaceful meaningful discussion on the substance of this thread - go to the beginning and read the initial statement opening the thread. My point (if you read carefully) in the recent post was that sometime people do not see the evidence (my example with cancer smoker, see above) or even worse - they do not want to see the evidence. In such situation, instead real evidence, they prefer to do "grande" conclusions regarding entire country AND at the same time ignore the fact that 27 european countries ban neonics beginning December for 2 years.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Data, data, data! I want to see data! I don't care about analogies. I don't care about what some famous person said. I don't care about pretty language. I don't care about politics. I don't care that someone posted a million vacuous posts. I want to see good data produced by good science. If we don't have good data, then we can't make a good decision, and no amount of blah blah will change that. If we don't have good data, the next step is to generate good data, rather than jumping to premature conclusions.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

I read it, and I read it carefully, and yes I picked up the condecending tone too. You seem to be fine ignoring the evidence that there's no smoking (puin intended) gun in Australia but seem to be quick to condemn others for not seeing the "evidence". I see the lack of Australian issues as evidence that neonic's are not the boogieman others claim.

You disagree, and post "...27 european countries ban neonics beginning December for 2 years." as evidence of guilt. Yet no guilt has been proven. If it was they wouldn't ban it for only 2 years. Then you move on to the sky-is-falling 3rd stage undiagnosed cancer reference..., (so by that thinking I have cancer until I prove otherwise?)

So be it, but you have some of the same blinders on that you are accusing others of having. Yours merely are blinded to the opposing evidence.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by cerezha

Now,another aspect of your statement: I was not able to find exact numbers, but it seems to me that rough estimate is that North America has approximately 15 million beehives/colonies. You have 1000+, which is approximately 0.006%. I am sorry, but from statistical point of view, your operation is not significant to draw ANY conclusion sorry about that. The same as my example (see above) that having unhealthy lifestyle promote good health - would not be accepted by any health organization... on the basis that it is not statistically significant.

I highly suspect that you're not parsing this data very well. First, it would make much more sense to compare commercial operations than simply comparing the total number of hives in the US to MP's 1000 hives - simplistic at best. I suspect that there are on the order of 1400 (perhaps far fewer) commercial operations in the US. Now, before you start comparing and jumping to statistical "conclusions", e.g., 1/1400, one must first survey all 1400 and evaluate methods and practices for each and then start looking at the many factors leading to survival rates among this group. There may indeed be some statistical significance to MP operation, but it certainly cannot be ascertained as you suggest.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by cerezha

Exactly - if Mr. Palmer's bees are doing OK in neonic crops, it does not mean that the rest of 15 million beehives/colonies are doing equally well! Yes, it was my entire point that such "grande" arguments (all Australia is covered with neonics and bees are OK) are not right and misleading!

Your statements are really quite contradictory. You didn't seem to blink an eye when you quoted the 0.006% above and how statistically insignificant MP results are. By saying 0.006% you are explicitly assuming that the remaining hives (15,000,000-1000) are NOT doing well.

Re: The austrlian distraction

"I wouild love to respond to your questions but the Moderator is not allowing me to post in real time or in real locations.
I assume this is to destroy any proper conversation."

No BBM, this is because you have a long history of polluting this forum with your intentionally misleading diatribes that are void of supporting facts.

Further, you do not engage in any type of conversation. You simply post your very political statements and then ignore any points others post which contradicted your religion.

Mr Palmer asked :" I keep more than 1000 colonies including wintered nucleus colonies and production colonies. I made 100+ lbs/colony from the honey producers. My bees are surrounded by corn treated with clothianidin. My winter losses are between 10% and 15%...same as always since varroa arrived. Diagnosing the losses, it becomes obvious the most of the losses were from varroa.

So, tell me why my bees aren't aren't sick from neonics.

BBM, please explain how Mr. Palmer can have such good success when, according to you, his bees feed on such poisonous chemicals? That you won't answer this question confirms that you have no intention in engaging in a conversation and are only interested in using this forum as your political soapbox.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Barry

I don't see anyone saying this. There most likely are no "perfectly ok" bees. But there are commercial beekeepers with many hives next to neonic crops where their bees are OK, maybe not perfect, but nothing noticeably wrong. This is a far cry from some who are saying they lost all their bees due to neonic crops. A rather large gap here, and it should be cause for a little more reserve in how grand our statements are.

Instead of "Okay", wouldn't it be more accurate to say productive and that colony mortality is relatively low?

Re: The austrlian distraction

I would say that "I have no idea" is a response to a question, but is not an answer. But this is splitting semantic hairs. The fact remains that BorderBeeMan, after all his lengthy railing against neonics, turned out to be clueless on how someone could have a high percentage of successful hives in an area surrounded by neonic-laced corn - a result which is in direct contradiction to BBM's position that neonics as used in the field are deadly to bees. This shows that BBM has no idea what he is talking about, which was the main point. In other words, the emperor has no clothes.

I will say at least he was honest in professing his ignorance. That I can admire.

I, too, do not know what affect neonics is having on bees, but, I am not posting huge anti-neonic diatribes and making grandiose unsupported statements about the evils of neonics. I am simply trying to learn what is going on, and I quickly realized that BBM was little more than a fraud.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by AstroBee

... 1/1400, one must first survey all 1400 and evaluate methods and practices for each and then start looking at the many factors leading to survival rates among this group. There may indeed be some statistical significance to MP operation, but it certainly cannot be ascertained as you suggest.

Sure, I have no problem with this - my point was that it is not possible to make "grande" conclusions based only on MP operation. You got it right! Interestingly, 1/1400 is 0.07% - apparently my very rough estimate was (right) close (corrected!!!). In this discussion, I do not express ether for or against neonics. I merely respond on MP request that somebody should explain to HIM why HIS bees are doing well in neonics. It is non sense to me (asking somebody.....). Also, unwillingness to share success story speaking something about commercial beekeeping practices.Correction: 1000/15000000 == 0.006%
1/1400 == 0.07%, 10x more